Re: Digest Number 2740

I disagree with you. We shouldn't be having discussions on this 
forum about what matters we should or shouldn't be discussing.



--- In WSM_Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Richard Montague" 
<richardmontague@...> wrote:
>
> World Socialist Movement ForumI am inclined to agree with Lillia 
apropos the question of 'value in socialism'.  I think such issues 
are outside the parameters of the difficult enough struggle to win 
support for the simple concept of a world of common ownership of the 
means of life and democratic free access to needs.  Perhaps it is 
one of the issues that might represent the 'politics' of a socialist 
system either when we are on the threshold of a sane world or when 
sanity prevails but it is not relevant to the imperatives of the 
hour.
> 
> In certain circumstances, in a discussion perhaps with someone who 
is au fait with the general Marxian approach, we might develop our 
argument through the MC of H or the Theory of Value but in most 
cases we would present the appalling social sins of capitalism and 
offer in the simplest of terms the socialist antidote to 
capitalism.  My experience to such a happening is approval of the 
antidote but rejection of its feasibility.  That surely is the 
kernel of our problem; not the general rejection of the desirability 
of socialism but disbelief engendered by capitalist conditioning in 
the possibility of its achievement.  The infamous 'credability 
gap'!  That is the nut we have to crack and speculation on whether 
or not goods and services would be labelled with social value in the 
society of the future will surely only engage us in possibly 
divisive matters that are not of immediate concern.
> 
> At any rate we possibly assume too much about what will happen in 
a socialist society.  Socialism as we define it will be the basis of 
that society but we cannot assume that people living within our 
defined paradigm will necessarily conform to our conceptions of 
behaviour where, its basis once assumed, a wide participative 
democracy will obtain.  Obviously the time when socialism is 
achieved will have a vital bearing on the issue.  The legacy of 
lunacy that capitalism leaves a fledgling socialism is much more 
bitter, much more grim today than it was when I first found myself 
shouting 'Eureka!' and there are evil cultures about that might well 
have a baneful effect on the new society and bear on the democratic 
choices it has to make.
> 
> Of course I am now committing the sin I complain about - 
encouraging divisive discussion when we should all be together out 
there in the garden driving out the snakes.  Apologies!
>   Richard Montague
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: WSM_Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>   To: WSM_Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>   Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 3:40 PM
>   Subject: [WSM_Forum] Digest Number 2740
> 
> 
>   World Socialist Movement Forum 
>   Messages In This Digest (1 Message) 
>     1. Re: Will we have ( a sort of italic ) value in Socialism ? 
From: Lillia Frantin 
>   View All Topics | Create New Topic Message 
>     1. Re: Will we have ( a sort of italic ) value in Socialism ? 
>     Posted by: "Lillia Frantin" ldfcomment@... 
>     Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:32 am (PST) 
>     Dave Balmer's re-presenting of well-thought out ideas on "why, 
in a socialist democracy, we would like and NEED to know the value 
(real value of a thing: ie the time used in its 
production....from 'raw' to 'finishing' stages, and then re-cycling 
of its parts,etc.) and how very easy such information would be to 
include on its "label" in the market where we'd "shop".....All well 
explicated here. (Read the old classic, "Looking Backwards" for abit 
of imaginative details of a different social order, not exactly as 
we picture it, but interestingly presented by Bellamy in the late 
18oo's, really needing to be updated by a talented writer amongst 
us...Anyone?) So, Thanks Dave.
>     So much arguing seems such a terrible waste of our energy, 
better spent in combining 'forces' to reach out to new readers & 
listeners
>     (thru political candidates, writers, public lecturers who can 
present our vision) rather than endlessly chasing our own 
tails.....or convincing those of us already convinced....One 
important thing we need to focus on here is: positive 
support "amongst our own, for each other" and then, a clear message 
of peaceful change to a society & culture based on co-operation not 
exploitation, fulfillment of human potential not distortion of it, 
and a vision of man and nature that is realistic, harmonious, 
healthy and based on the best precepts of brotherhood, love and 
justice. Actually, all we've learned since the Enlightenment, 
nothing much new, but put into a tangible, societal form that is 
basically missing from contemporary dialogue. That dialogue is 
begging for this vision. 
>     The real question is not "FA or Vouchers"! It is : How do we 
reach more people who are "waiting" for our 'message', but who have 
been confused and daunted by the capitalist propaganda of 
hopelessness and apathy? We need "presenters", communicators...in 
order to have an increasing audience...I wish it were a less "tall 
order"....but remember, conditions will be "on our side" as the 
system reveals its inefficiency, inadequacies, failures and ugliness 
more & more.....sad and yet necessary and inevitable. In the next 
decade, we need to be part of a political, cultural and public 
rebirth undeterred by any differing "minor" details, united by our 
basic understanding and vision. Wherever you stand on the 'details', 
remember the essentials we all agree on. Lillia
>     ----- Original Message ----- 
>     From: balmer_dave<mailto:balmer_dave@...> 
>     To: 
WSM_Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:WSM_Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
>     Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 8:43 PM
>     Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: Will we have ( a sort of italic ) 
value in Socialism ?
> 
>     "From the moment when society enters into possession of the 
means of 
>     production and uses them in direct association for production,"
> 
>     Ie. socialism
> 
>     "the labour of each individual, however varied its 
specifically 
>     useful character may be, becomes at the start and directly 
social 
>     labour. The quantity of social labour contained in a product 
need 
>     not then be established in a roundabout way;"
> 
>     Ie using money or dare I say labour vouchers, however;
> 
>     "daily experience" will "show(s) in a direct way how much of 
it 
>     is required on the average. Society can simply calculate how 
many 
>     hours of labour are contained in a steam-engine, a bushel of 
wheat 
>     of the last harvest, or a hundred square yards of cloth of a 
certain 
>     quality." 
> 
>     "It could therefore never occur to it still to express the 
>     quantities of labour put into the products, quantities which 
it will 
>     then know directly and in their absolute amounts, in a third 
>     product," 
> 
>     Ie. another commodity, prices, the universal money commodity, 
gold 
>     etc 
> 
>     "in a measure which, besides, is only relative, fluctuating, 
>     inadequate, though formerly unavoidable for lack of a better 
one, 
>     rather than express them in their natural, adequate and 
absolute 
>     measure, time." 
> 
>     Ie the labour time in gold, value of money, varies like in 
every 
>     other commodity, ish.
> 
>     Back to chemistry.
> 
>     "Just as little as it would occur to chemical science still to 
>     express atomic weight in a roundabout way, relatively, by 
means of 
>     the hydrogen atom, if it were able to express them absolutely, 
in 
>     their adequate measure, namely in actual weights, in 
billionths or 
>     quadrillionths of a gramme."
> 
>     Not too sure about that bit..
> 
>     "Hence, on the assumptions we made above, society will not 
assign 
>     values" (non italic) "to products. It will not express the 
simple 
>     fact that the hundred square yards of cloth have required for 
their 
>     production, say, a thousand hours of labour in the oblique and 
>     meaningless way, stating that they have the value (in italics) 
of a 
>     thousand hours of labour. 
> 
>     It is true that even then it will still be necessary for 
society to 
>     know how much labour each article of consumption requires for 
its 
>     production. It will have to arrange its plan of production in 
>     accordance with its means of production, which include, in 
>     particular, its labour-powers. The useful effects of the 
various 
>     articles of consumption, compared with one another and with 
the 
>     quantities of labour required for their production, will in 
the end 
>     determine the plan."
> 
>     "People will be able to manage everything very simply, without 
the 
>     intervention of much-vaunted "value". *15 
> 
>     "15 As long ago as 1844 I stated that the above-mentioned 
balancing 
>     of useful effects and expenditure of labour on making 
decisions 
>     concerning production was all that would be left, in a 
communist 
>     society, of the politico-economic concept of value. (Deutsch-
>     Französische Jahrbücher, p. 95) The scientific justification 
for 
>     this statement, however, as can be seen, was made possible 
only by 
>     Marx's Capital."
> 
>     So we will have value, sort of or what is left of it , in 
socialism 
>     but of course not exchange value, prices.
> 
>     Well that is that one cleared up.
> 
>     And;
> 
>     "Hence, just as commodity production and its economics obtain 
a 
>     relative expression for the unknown quantities of labour 
contained 
>     in the various commodities, by comparing these commodities on 
the 
>     basis of their relative labour content, so chemistry obtains a 
>     relative expression for the magnitude of the atomic weights 
unknown 
>     to it by comparing the various elements on the basis of their 
atomic 
>     weights, expressing the atomic weight of one element in 
multiples or 
>     fractions of the other (sulphur, oxygen, hydrogen). 
> 
>     And just as commodity production elevates gold to the level of 
the 
>     absolute commodity, the general equivalent of all other 
commodities, 
>     the measure of all values, so chemistry promotes hydrogen to 
the 
>     rank of the chemical money commodity, by fixing its atomic 
weight at 
>     1 and reducing the atomic weights of all other elements to 
hydrogen, 
>     expressing them in multiples of its atomic weight."
> 
>     Hhmm, I always thought this labour theory of value thing was 
like 
>     sucking eggs for chemists.
> 
>     Anti-Dühring by Frederick Engels 1877
>     Part III: Socialism
> 
>     IV. Distribution
> 
>     --- In 
WSM_Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:WSM_Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "balmer_
dave" <balmer_dave@> 
>     wrote:
>     >
>     > "Secondly, after the abolition of the capitalist mode of 
>     > production.......the determination of value continues to 
>     prevail....
>     > this, becomes more important than ever."
>     > 
>     > 
>     > Vol III pg 851 
>     > 
>     > 
>     > I have distinct recollection of this kind of thing being 
discussed 
>     > in NW branch meetings over the years if in slightly 
different 
>     terms. 
>     > I think it is a credit to the common sense of those members 
who 
>     > believed we would have value in a money less socialist 
society. 
>     > 
>     > We were not talking about having some kind of substitute for 
money 
>     > in order to ration consumption, we were talking of a society 
of 
>     free 
>     > access.
>     > 
>     > In socialism I would want to know how much labour had gone 
into an 
>     > item that I was considering consuming eg a diamond or a 
digital 
>     > watch.
>     > 
>     > This is just an illustration so lets ignore whether or not 
we 
>     would 
>     > still be spending loads of time digging deep under ground 
for bits 
>     > of glass.
>     > 
>     > 
>     > If I didn't know better I might think that the diamond 
didn't 
>     > require much effort to produce and with it being nice and 
glittery 
>     > it might make a good little present for my five-year-old 
niece to 
>     > play with. Even if she would probably lose it after five 
minutes. 
>     I 
>     > would be horrified at what I had done if after she had lost 
it I 
>     > discovered that it had cost 80 hours labour to produce it.
>     > 
>     > On the other side I might spend lifetime and hours of effort 
>     > carefully looking after a digital watch. Taking it off 
before a 
>     > shower even though it is waterproof making sure it did not 
get 
>     > knocked or banged. Taking great care not to lose it. Just 
like the 
>     > way people used to treat a good time piece 30 years ago.
>     > 
>     > I would be pissed of if I found out that I had spent 500 
hours of 
>     my 
>     > life, 10 minutes a day for 10 years, taking care of 
something with 
>     > one hours labour in it. I am not putting the eco terrorist 
>     argument 
>     > here suggesting we just throw things away because they are 
cheap. 
>     > But in socialism we are going to want to know what the cost 
of 
>     > things are so we can set ourselves priorities on how we 
treat or 
>     > look after objects, value them. 
>     > 
>     > 
>     > In my socialist supermarket I would want everything with 
labour 
>     time 
>     > labels on them just like nutritional information. Perhaps I 
would 
>     > also want some kind of ecological cost label as well.
>     > 
>     > If we were building a bridge in socialism the architects 
might 
>     well 
>     > come up with some fantastic ideas. This happens frequently 
under 
>     > capitalism. Most architects, risking causing offence, 
couldn't 
>     > assemble a flat pack garden shed. The architects drawings 
and 
>     pretty 
>     > pictures are passed onto the structural engineers who decide 
>     whether 
>     > it can be done. Having thrown out the idea of a glass road 
bridge, 
>     > although it would look really nice, they look at the 
practicality 
>     > and cost of the other plans.
>     > 
>     > We would still be doing this in socialism. We would need to 
be 
>     > always making decisions on whether a project was worth the 
effort, 
>     > its value, labour. 
>     > 
>     > 
>     > All of this presents no problem what so ever for my labour 
theory 
>     of 
>     > value although i think it will cause a major headache for my 
>     > adversaries.
>     >
> 
>     Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
>     [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
>     Back to top Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web 
post 
>     Messages in this topic (12) Recent Activity
>     a..  3 New Members
>   Visit Your Group 
>   New Message Search
>   Find the message you want faster. Visit your group to try out 
the improved message search.
> 
> 
> 
>   Share feedback on the new changes to Groups
> 
>   Need to Reply?
>   Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message 
in the Daily Digest.
>   Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web 
>   Messages 
>    
>   You are receiving a Daily Digest Change Delivery Settings 
>   Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe 
>    
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>